Ticket!! >:0

[angelneo]

Ah yes, the popular "I'm right because I say so" argument. Very popular. At first I thought you were being sarcastic because of all the grammar errors, but after a reread I think you may be serious. In that case...

Listen, in individual cases high speeds and speeding can cause accidents, but the fact remains that raising the speed limit has no effect whatsoever on fatal accident rates. Imposing a speed limit does not make you safer, as people drive the speed they are comfortable with given the road and the conditions no matter what the posted limit. There are jerks on both ends, both faster and slower, which is why the average speed is usually determined to be around the 85th percentile. Were limits to be imposed, that's where they should be set.

Your reasoning is exactly why we have such low limits. Instead of taking responsibility, we need to blame something. Speed is always an easy one, but I'd venture to guess that talking on the phone, eating, talking to passengers, putting on makeup, etc... general inattention, if you will, have a greater impact on accidents than speeding. Of course, such a study would be impossible to perform. I would also guess that bad multicar accidents on the highway are rarely caused by an inability to go from 65 or 85 to 0. If you rearend someone on the highway, chances are good you were following too close in the first place.

My reasoning is that I am tired of people nit-picking about why speeding is right and arguing about who's right who's wrong, when basically slowing down and taking an extra 10 mins to reach your destination is no big deal.

It also applies when you see jay-walkers not waiting for traffic lights and dashing across when they could have just waited for an extra 20 seconds

 

[Gizmotoy]

My reasoning is that I am tired of people nit-picking about why speeding is right and arguing about who's right who's wrong, when basically slowing down and taking an extra 10 mins to reach your destination is no big deal.

It also applies when you see jay-walkers not waiting for traffic lights and dashing across when they could have just waited for an extra 20 seconds

Ah, I see... so now you take something no one ever said (speeding is right), and argue against that. Straw man arguments are great, arent they?

Speed limits were enacted to save gas. Today, they have no bearing on safety and at most are still saving us gas. There's no nit-picking about it, that's just the way it is.

 

[IJ Reilly]

And yet you continue to argue your beliefs without fact or knowledge of the actual points at hand. Not a single one of the studies I provided even had sidebars. When provided with information and studies proving your point incorrect, you stick your head in the ground and go "na na na, I can't hear you". The physics behind a moving car has absolutely nothing to do with the accident rate, and the relationship between fatal and non-fatal accidents has nothing to do with physics. Kinetic energy does not cause accidents. Your unsubstantiated urgument makes no sense whatsoever. You have been arguing that speed kills, or at the very least, causes accidents. This is obviously not the case as shown by study after study, despite your wishes for it to be true. I'm sorry you can't see that.

I suggest you learn how research is done before arguing indefensible points in the future. You'll never find a study using the "accident rate" you seem to be claiming as the only measure you'll accept because the fatal accident rate is the most accurate measure of highway safety.
http://www.motorists.com/issues/speed/Making_Sense.html

If you wish to be taken seriously in the future I suggest you employ some manner of substantiating your claims.

Please read the section "Summary of the effects of no daytime speed limits." The part about the 88% increase in seatbelt usage might interest you. It might cast just a little doubt on your assertion that fatality rates are a good measure of overall accident rates. In truth, there's no reason to think the two are highly correlated, especially given that cars are designed far better now than they used to be in terms of protecting passengers from severe injuries. Also, the use of seatbelts has steadily increased, which is highly correlated to reducing traffic fatalities. Traffic death rates have been declining world-wide for the past 15 years or so for these reasons. Attributing this trend to allowing people Montana to drive as fast as they wish is beyond counter-intutive -- it's just plain silly.

You should also pause to consider that Montana is one of the top three states in the U.S. for traffic fatality rates. Such a deadly place is probably not a great model to use as an example, let alone to emulate.

You should also go argue the physics with Isaac Newton. That's what you are doing anyway. But only if you wish to be taken seriously, of course.

 

[robbieduncan]

... Traffic death rates have been declining world-wide for the past 15 years or so for these reasons. Attributing this trend to allowing people Montana to drive as fast as they wish is beyond counter-intutive -- it's just plain silly...

Amazingly I totally agree! It's a shame that here in the UK more people don't understand this. We have steadily decreasing speed limits on rural roads (many have dropped from 60mph to 40mph in the past few years) coupled with a massive roll out of both fixed and mobile speed cameras. Those behind this point to the decreases in fatalities as proof that it's all working fine. They fail to take into account the regression that is happening anyway.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Speed limits were enacted to save gas. Today, they have no bearing on safety and at most are still saving us gas. There's no nit-picking about it, that's just the way it is.

Of all the assertions you've made, this one might be the most ludicrous. Speed limits have been around since the dawn of the motor age, with the express purpose of reducing accidents. The only time they were lowered to conserve fuel was in 1973.

 

[angelneo]

Ah, I see... so now you take something no one ever said (speeding is right), and argue against that. Straw man arguments are great, arent they?

Speed limits were enacted to save gas. Today, they have no bearing on safety and at most are still saving us gas. There's no nit-picking about it, that's just the way it is.

ok, so what if speed limits are there to save gas? or what if the major cause of traffic accidents is listening to mobile while driving? Does it means that speeding is not dangerous?

You can go on saying my arguments are straw man, my grammar is bad, but that doesn't change the fact that speeding is dangerous.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Amazingly I totally agree! It's a shame that here in the UK more people don't understand this. We have steadily decreasing speed limits on rural roads (many have dropped from 60mph to 40mph in the past few years) coupled with a massive roll out of both fixed and mobile speed cameras. Those behind this point to the decreases in fatalities as proof that it's all working fine. They fail to take into account the regression that is happening anyway.

Yes, exactly. To understand what is happening in any complicated system you have to able to control the variables, which nobody is doing here.

Some common sense needs to apply. If a vehicle is traveling at twice the posted speed limit, the driver will have half the amount of time to react to road situations compared to traveling at the limit, and four times the distance to stop the car will be needed. The faster driver will also be at more risk of losing control of the vehicle in avoidance maneuvers.

 

[mac-er]

You are probably thinking of red light cameras. I'd never heard of speed cameras before.

No. Charlotte has both red light and speed cameras.

Slow down - speed cameras are watching (map)

Traffic cameras along 14 routes this week

MELISSA MANWARE

Published July 12, 2004

Your chance of getting fined for speeding in Charlotte-Mecklenburg will go way up beginning this week.

After more than a year of planning, police expect are set to begin using a high-tech camera to catch speeders. The camera -- which can snap a picture every half-second -- will photograph speeding vehicles, whose owners will then get a $50 citation by mail.

Charlotte-Mecklenburg is the first and only police department in North Carolina allowed to use the cameras, which were approved by the legislature on a trial basis. That means drivers have a lot of questions.

Here are answers the ones we've heard most frequently:

Q. How many cameras are there and how often will they be used?

Charlotte-Mecklenburg police eventually will operate three cameras daily, each for 16 hours a day. The hours will vary. But the department is beginning this week with just one camera. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Capt. Dave Haggist, who is heading up the program, said all three should be clicking by August.

Q. How will the speed cameras work?

Charlotte-Mecklenburg police officers will operate them from inside three marked vans. The officers will set a speed threshold; vehicles exceeding that speed will be photographed.

The vehicle's owner will receive a citation by certified mail, including a copy of the photograph and a close-up of their license plate. The photo will be marked with the date, time, location and speed.

Q. Where will they be used?

The legislature approved use of the cameras in 14 designated corridors (see map). Haggist said those areas were selected by the Charlotte Department of Transportation because speed is the primary factor in frequent crashes there.

Q. Why are so many of the corridors in east Charlotte?

Haggist said the streets were chosen based on crash data, not on geography.

 

[Gizmotoy]

Please read the section "Summary of the effects of no daytime speed limits." The part about the 88% increase in seatbelt usage might interest you. It might cast just a little doubt on your assertion that fatality rates are a good measure of overall accident rates. In truth, there's no reason to think the two are highly correlated, especially given that cars are designed far better now than they used to be in terms of protecting passengers from severe injuries. Also, the use of seatbelts has steadily increased, which is highly correlated to reducing traffic fatalities. Traffic death rates have been declining world-wide for the past 15 years or so for these reasons. Attributing this trend to allowing people Montana to drive as fast as they wish is beyond counter-intutive -- it's just plain silly.

You should also pause to consider that Montana is one of the top three states in the U.S. for traffic fatality rates. Such a deadly place is probably not a great model to use as an example, let alone to emulate.

You should also go argue the physics with Isaac Newton. That's what you are doing anyway. But only if you wish to be taken seriously, of course.

And still you claim that fatality rates are not a good measure of traffic safety? Why? Technology gets better, seatbelt usage rates have increased. How does that invalidate fatality rates as a measure of safety? Cars are safer than they have ever been. By the same reasoning you have put forth to disqualify fatality rates as an accurate measure of safety, one could say that the introduction of ABS brakes, traction control, yaw control, and limited slip differentials (and maybe the growing use of AWD, but I'm not sure that'd have much if any effect) has had an effect on accident rates. So yes, I do understand what you are saying, I just don't agree. Both measures are affected by technological advances, and disqualifying one because of that should disqualify the other. This is precisely why trending is used in the studies presented... you noticed the 5 or 6 previous years they presented, yes? Trends are always taken into account in any decent research. Those studies saw fatality rates fall when the limits were adjusted, but it was within the overall trend, hence the claim that limits have no effect on the rate despite the drop in fatalities.

There's no point arguing the physics, since nothing can be proven either way. I can envision very few cases where the physical limits of the car actually affect an accident in progress (limited to the highway setting, of course). They're designed as straight and flat as possible. The only one I can think of is suddenly stopping traffic, but you do have about a car length for every 10mph between you and the car in front of you, right? Physics has very, very little do with highway accidents, and one can cheat physics with advancing technologies, as the downward fatality and accident rates indicate. Besides, the more complete laws of conservation are more applicable in this case than Newton.

I also agree that Montana is not a place to be emulating. I presented it as an interesting case. They had speed limits and had a fairly consistant fatality rate, they removed the speed limits and the fatality rate dropped, then re-enacted the speed limits and the fatality rate spiked again. Now, as you mention, they are the 3rd worst state in the country. The drop may not be attributable to the removal of the limits due to the downward trend, but then how is the spike after putting the limits back in explained?

So basically, what it boils down to is that if I were to argue that speed kills, I'd also have to argue that the lack of speed kills, and does so at a much higher rate: http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/speed/speed.htm Speed is a crash factor, but it is not necessarily the cause.

I see you've done some research this time, and I respect that. You didn't quote anything specific, but I was able to find the studies you pulled your stats from (I assume). I appreciate the respect you've shown to myself and others by supporting your claims (though providing the sources helps ).

You can go on saying my arguments are straw man, my grammar is bad, but that doesn't change the fact that speeding is dangerous.

The same cannot be said for you, I'm afraid.

(fixed quote tag)

 

[IJ Reilly]

Physics has little to do with traffic accidents? I have to admit, I've never considered the possibility that cars are not objects with mass and velocity. Does that make driving a metaphysical experience? Such an interesting theory.

So now you've taken to attributing the words of others to me. Wow. I've been around here for years and never had anyone pull that stunt.

Oy, this debate is so over.

 

[Gizmotoy]

Physics has little to do with traffic accidents? I have to admit, I've never considered the possibility that cars are not objects with mass and velocity. Does that make driving a metaphysical experience? Such an interesting theory.

So now you've taken to attributing the words of others to me. Wow. I've been around here for years and never had anyone pull that stunt.

Oy, this debate is so over.

Fixed the attribution... just copied down the little quote tag, forgot to change the name. It was blatently obvious I wasn't talking about you though, no need to get all hissy. It was an accident.

Sure, the laws of physics apply to cars. Do they cause the accidents? No, as stated clearly above. If speed, and hence physics, had a linear effect on accident rates what you imply might be true. But no one has proven that, and many, many papers have shown the opposite.

 

[leftbanke7]

Highway cops have a huge hard-on for doing their job.

SuperTroopers I have never met.

Show me a highway trooper who doesnt act like a total high and mighty jackass, holding their chest out and acting like they are a principal in middle school. Makes me sick.

Sounds like my friend. He had a major hard on for getting onto the UHP (Utah Highway Patrol) but for one reason or another, he didn't make it. He would always talk **** about how he would bust us all for the tiniest things and would talk about how he would bust people who pissed him off at work. Well, other police agencies would have vacancies and he would never apply because, although he never said it, he wanted the ability to be a bad ass anywhere (b/c I guess UHP has jurisdiction anywhere in the state). So anyway he finally made it on with the UHP and it shouldn't be long now before I start getting pulled over on a weekly basis b/c he's bored (although I doubt he'd give me a ticket).

 

[angelneo]

The same cannot be said for you, I'm afraid.

(fixed quote tag)

Hmm... That's a good way to convince me. I still failed to see your logic of telling me that speeding is not dangerous. Perhaps, you can try to appeal to my common sense.

 

[Gizmotoy]

Hmm... That's a good way to convince me. I still failed to see your logic of telling me that speeding is not dangerous. Perhaps, you can try to appeal to my common sense.

I couldn't care less about convincing you. I've provided plenty of proof of my thoughts on the matter, and you have provided none for yours. If you can't analyze the facts for yourself, I can't do it for you.

 

[angelneo]

I couldn't care less about convincing you. I've provided plenty of proof of my thoughts on the matter, and you have provided none for yours. If you can't analyze the facts for yourself, I can't do it for you.

so I believe the discussion ends here. All I want is an explanation of why do you think speed is not dangerous but all that you can provide is how speeding is not a major cause of accidents

 

[YS2003]

I have not read this thread from the beginning. But, I can see the overall nature of dicussion on this matter.

First, there are people who supports lower speed limit (to save lives or whatever reasons) and the other who does not believe in artifically low speed limit. I came to conclusion it is impossible to convince the other side as most of us already made up our mind and stands on this. In my opinion, certain roads are set at very low speed limit for a skilled driver (in the public areas, it is very common we set the rules to the lowest commond denominator, ie. the people with poor driving skills). In that sense, I also made up my mind and I don't plan to change my opinion.

But, it is a fact cops will use the speed trap to reach a quota and bring money to their employers (state govt, local gov, and other entity which finances law enforcement agency).

 

[gwuMACaddict]

errr... i feel like i've missed a lot of a very silly argument...

but here's my take on it

F=ma

which means

the bigger the negative a (this is the stopping force, folks), the more F (negative, because it's going to push against you)

too much F will kill a person, no matter how strapped in to the m they are...

 

[jestershinra]

errr... i feel like i've missed a lot of a very silly argument...

but here's my take on it

F=ma

which means

the bigger the negative a (this is the stopping force, folks), the more F (negative, because it's going to push against you)

too much F will kill a person, no matter how strapped in to the m they are...

LOL

Succinct, if sarcastic

 

[Sun Baked]

so I believe the discussion ends here. All I want is an explanation of why do you think speed is not dangerous but all that you can provide is how speeding is not a major cause of accidents

It wasn't the speed that was an issue in some of these accidents, it was the variance is speeds that caused problems.

If there were some people traveling at 85 and some at 55 -- there can be major problems.

More so than everyone speeding between 70 to 80.

These variances are even worse in heavy traffic.

When the speed limit was raised, the extra patrols keep most everyone at the same speed.

Now that enforcement has been dropping during the yearly budget cuts, and the variances are going back up, there are some extremely dangerous stretches of road popping up.

I live near one so bad that they are going to put speed cameras on the freeway to get everyone back down to the speed limit.

And no the road isn't safe at higher speeds, since the center cable barrier fails at higher speeds allowing headons.

 

[2nyRiggz]

speeding is no good man......RIP to my peepz that fell in the streetsz.



Bless

 

[Gizmotoy]

so I believe the discussion ends here. All I want is an explanation of why do you think speed is not dangerous but all that you can provide is how speeding is not a major cause of accidents

How else are you to measure if something is or is not more dangerous that something else than by examining cases where that might be true? Danger explicitly implies accidents. There is no possible way to measure danger than by considering accidents. And I know that your next comment will be "physics says...", but the fact is that dangers due to physics are included in the accident totals. If physics of a moving car played a dominating role in the dangers of driving a car, you'd see it in the data. Since there's not, there are other factors at work.

All I've been saying is this:
Arranged in the order from least to most likely to get in an accident (and get hurt or killed, hence, dangerous):
Going the average speed
Going over the average speed
Going under the average speed

Where the average speed is the 85th percentile of the traffic flow. Noting, of course, that speed limits are set below the 85th percentile in most cases.

This is all backed up significantly in previously cited sources.

It wasn't the speed that was an issue in some of these accidents, it was the variance is speeds that caused problems.

Exactly. The safest case would be everyone driving the same speed, but good luck with that.

And no the road isn't safe at higher speeds, since the center cable barrier fails at higher speeds allowing headons.

That's just scary. Hope they come up with a better solution, or that the cameras work. I know bad driving on poorly-designed roads can be:

http://www.cincinnati.com/news/bridge/news_bridge_main21.html
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com//showthread.php?postid=1531343

 

[mkaake]

My two cents... and I really don't care what the others think.

For the original poster: Now that you've got the ticket in hand, the next best thing to do is contact a traffic attorney. Do not admit fault. In fact, do not admit anything. Explain the circumstances to your attorney. Pay fee, and more than likely, get the case dismissed. If you're going to fight this yourself, be sure you're armed to the teeth with proof. Don't say "Well, I had to pass the truck because it was blowing it's transmission out through his muffler." You basically just admitted that you did, in fact, speed. You'll get a reduction in fine (maybe), but that's pointless, because you'll get screwed on your insurance when they report it. Or if you're lucky you can get something like a "defaulted" ticket (?) where you pay this ticket, it won't go on your record, but if you get another ticket withina year period, both tickets are reported.

I've gone through this rigamarole more than a dozen times. As far as I'm concerned, speeding tickets and parking tickets are nothing but state-sponsored extortion. It's a bunch of laws sooooo outdated. It's just another scam to bring money into their coffers. "Measuring Devices" such as radar, laser, and "the experienced eye" are sooooo faulty. They are NOT foolproof, and, for the most part, provide erroneous readings. Somewher online there is a documentary where the tester had aimed a laser gun at a PALM TREE and it clocked the stationary object going 30 mph!?

And to the poster that says "speed kills", man, get a clue. It's the drivers' training and education in this country that gets people killed. You can get a license by reading a handbook that's about 10 pages thick (I'm exagerating, but you get the point), and parallel park. Most other countries you have to take a class several weeks long, and they are hands-on intensive training. You also learn what happens to your car when it loses control and how to bring it back under control. Cellphones (my pet peeve; I absolutely hate this), putting on cosmetics, eating a meal, READING NEWSPAPERS, not signalling when turning, not paying attention to what's happening around you is what KILLS.
hehe sorry rant off

this is part one of my rant after reading 4 pages of this stuff.

why the crap do people think it's okay to ignore the law if they don't like it???

I mean seriously? if you don't agree with a EULA, don't use the software. If you don't agree with the speed limit, throw away your licence and ride a bike. Can't do that? Then deal with it (the speed limit that is).

And what the crap is up with telling people to fight a speeding ticket that they got? They know that they broke the law. They knew what the consequences would be if they broke the law. But you want them to waste the government's time and money to try and get out of the ticket that they knew was coming? What the crap?

 

[mkaake]

rant part 2:

the kiddie arguements are really hard to wade thru... so let's try to cut back on the 'I'm obviously a 14 year old who has a superiority complex' posts. It would help out the discussion quite a bit.

Now, here's the facts of the matter on 'Speed Kills / Doesn't Kill'

1. No study can conclusively say that there has been any change in the accident rate / fatality rate / whatever rate based soley on speed. The empircal evidence simply can't back any claims *in anyone's favor* because there have been so many drastic changes to the way automobiles work, the roads are planned out, and yes, even driver training and preparation. You can't compare a muscle car (which, while having a nice big motor, had crappy brakes and suspension, and typically a lap belt) to even a current day cheapo car, which has abs, 2 or 4 wheel discs, airbags in front and to the sides of driver. Nor car you compare roads that were designed 50+ years ago to roads that were recently upgraded or even built. And unless you've been in drivers ed courses from 50 years ago as well as current ones, you're not really in a position to argue about that.

Just with those basic variables, it's impossible to look at crash data from even 10 years ago and compare it to now, and say 'Wow, that change must be related to the speed people were driving!'

So, to sum up #1, there is no evidence, nor will there be evidence, supporting a rise or fall of accidents / fatalities / whatevers related to vehicle speed.

2. Despite the fact that empirical evidence may not be able to offer assistance, physics (yes, it's been brought up many times, but dutifully ignored by those who don't want to pay attention to it) *does* tell us that *shock* - when a car is going faster, it's going faster. Meaning it approaches an object faster. The person who said that physics has nothing to do with fatalities / crashes needs to stop and think about what they said - it's *all* about the physics. And, as mentioned way back on page 2, a car that is moving faster requires far more energy to stop - a function of the square of velocity. It's kind of hard to ignore that. Unless you plan on ignoring physics. You can do that, but I'll warn you ahead of time - your car won't be as kind as to ignore it when you want it too.

So while yes, as said in #1, we don't have any evidence to statistically support *anyone's* position, it doesn't take much thought to realize that going faster = less reaction time. And I'm sure that you're all crack drivers who would put professionals to shame (I mean, really, who isn't??), but no matter how well you may think you drive, you can't control the idiots on the road. What happens when you're doing 95 on the highway, and an old guy decides that he missed his exit and comes to a complete stop in the middle lane, throws his car into reverse, and starts backing into traffic moving at 70?

You can laugh, but I saw it happen last week. Not very cool. Even if it's in a different lane, people are going to be moving out of his way - in to yours.

which brings us to #3...

3. Yes, I realize that there are other, possibly more hazardous things on the road. Cell phones, makeup, lunch, the old dude, whatever. But saying that they're there doesn't negate the fact that they drive on the road, and as long as they're on the road, you're going to have to adjust your driving to suit. So until your master plan is implemented that removes *all* bad drivers from the road (and since we're all amazing drivers here, let's honestly ask ourselves - have you *ever* done something stupid on the road? maybe you shouldn't be driving either), there's an issue with speed.

I can sum that idea up pretty quickly with my thought, based on trying to make some spreadsheets that I made for work 'idiot proof'. After working for days on removing ways of screwing the spreadsheet up, I finally realized: the only way to idiot proof something is to remove the idiots.

And we're all idiots, so it would be better if there were speed limits imposed on us to keep us from getting into too much trouble. And if you go faster than the limits, don't &$*# about it when you get a ticket. Pay it up, get on with your life. If you choose to speed, then you're choosing to live with the consequences of speeding. Which may mean a ticket, or splatting into a wall .125 seconds faster than if you had been doing the limit.

</rant>

 

[Gizmotoy]

1. No study can conclusively say that there has been any change in the accident rate / fatality rate / whatever rate based soley on speed. The empircal evidence simply can't back any claims *in anyone's favor* because there have been so many drastic changes to the way automobiles work, the roads are planned out, and yes, even driver training and preparation. You can't compare a muscle car (which, while having a nice big motor, had crappy brakes and suspension, and typically a lap belt) to even a current day cheapo car, which has abs, 2 or 4 wheel discs, airbags in front and to the sides of driver. Nor car you compare roads that were designed 50+ years ago to roads that were recently upgraded or even built. And unless you've been in drivers ed courses from 50 years ago as well as current ones, you're not really in a position to argue about that.

Which is why studies include all of this. I'm not sure if you've ever done any scientific research before, but they'll typically include pretty large sample sizes in order to eliminate variances like this. In those accident reports you'll have accidents on new roads and old, in muscle cars and econo boxes, and with good drivers and poor drivers. Trending accounts for increasing safety in vehicles and improved road design. You claim to end kiddie arguments by presenting "facts", but not only did you not mention anything that has not already been addressed, you did not produce any facts. Super.

If physics is the end-all of car accidents, one would assume that those travelling faster than the average speed would be more likely to get killed in an accident than those travelling slower than the average speed, but this is not the case.

 

[mkaake]

No, the kiddy stuff I was reffering too was this:

Super.

Petty sarcasm. And very childish. Now, on with the rest of your post:

Which is why studies include all of this. I'm not sure if you've ever done any scientific research before, but they'll typically include pretty large sample sizes in order to eliminate variances like this. In those accident reports you'll have accidents on new roads and old, in muscle cars and econo boxes, and with good drivers and poor drivers. Trending accounts for increasing safety in vehicles and improved road design. You claim to end kiddie arguments by presenting "facts", but not only did you not mention anything that has not already been addressed, you did not produce any facts. Super.

I don't need to have 10 pages of google results to back up what I said. Yes, I've run scientific research before, I'm an engineer. It's that sort of thing that we 'tend to do'. And you can take as large a sample size as you want, you're not going to eliminate the variances we're talking about. In one day's time in the US, there are approximately 117 fatal car crashes in the US? You're talking at least 200 different vehicles (of which there are certainly at least a quarter as many makes and models) in very different ranges of weather, time of day, etc. You also have no direct method of knowing the speed of the persons involved in the accident. Most speeds reported in accident reports are based on what one of the drivers says... which leaves room for a lot of speculation as to the truth. Do you suppose the person who caused the accident is going to tell the police officer that he was traveling 30 mph over the speed limit? Or do you suppose the person who got hit would say the other was doing 10 under, or do you think that both of them might say something a little bit different than what actually happened?

So you can go ahead and try to take a sample size to reduce that sort of variation, but you won't be able to do it until you have accurate numbers to use. After you have accurate numbers, you still need a very large sample size... but you're still going to face amazing amounts of variation in your data. About the only way to really know with any solid conviction is if you stage accidents with the same drivers on the same days with the same cars, only varying speed.

If physics is the end-all of car accidents, one would assume that those travelling faster than the average speed would be more likely to get killed in an accident than those travelling slower than the average speed, but this is not the case.

If physics isn't the end-all of car accidents, please convince the earth to agree with you. Despite your constant arguing to the contrary, physics don't go away because you don't like what they have to say.

The only thing we know, based on the evidence that we have to look at today, is that a car that is moving faster has less time to react to a situation on the road. When you can prove that a person moving faster has more time to react than the person moving slower, you can say that physics don't matter. Until then, I'll just keep pretending that physics are real.